Debate is simply another genre in communication. Hence in any communicative situation there would be people who are the senders and receivers as well as other people who influence the views, ideas and the choice of words of the senders as well as the receivers. Thus I would like to discuss a bit on the peripheral influence of networking influence in debate.
It is always helpful if you know the person when it comes to communicating. Thus in debating, this person or groups of persons, will represent a lot more than mere knowing. You need to know:
1. the kind of structures they like in the speech (inclusive of all the debate speech segments i.e rebuttals and POI’s)
2. the kind of model they like for the argument framing,
3. the number of acceptable claims speakers should have and
4. the issues that a debater should know.
However, a community being a community, these networking knowledge would also logically include:
1. If someone knows on first name basis, (tough to tell someone you know they lose, especially in a close one)
2. Your drink preference (liquor or plain water)
3. The outfit you prance around in,
4. Sexual orientation,
5. Many-many more.
It is tough to be objective with these networking grapevine rules. Even in the court of law where attire is controlled, even in the British Parliament when curses must be hidden with farts and even in kindergarden where rules of networking is at its infancy, these rules do take place, they are influential, powerful and dangerous if the intent of the holder of these information is even slightly less than noble. Thus, get all your plans working, get all the infos but like the Prince of Persia.